This article is one in an occasional series about people with British Columbian roots having positive impacts in Israel and elsewhere.

For Vancouver-born Israeli Eli Kowaz, there is only one path to ensuring Israel remains both a Jewish state and a democracy: a two-state solution. The road to that ideal may be long and the slogging hard, but this is the core mandate of the Israel Policy Forum, where he serves as communications director.

Though focused on Israel and its situation, IPF’s mission is to “shape the discourse and mobilize support among American Jewish leaders and U.S. policymakers for the realization of a viable two-state solution.”

Israel currently has military control over the entire land from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River but, to continue being a Jewish state as well as a democracy, Kowaz said, Israel faces a decision.

“It can decide to annex the West Bank, keep the entire land and, if it wants to be a Jewish state, it will have to give up on the democracy aspect because, if it was to grant all the citizens living between the Jordan and the Mediterranean equal rights, then already today, Jews would be about 50-50, a small majority,” he said.

The answer is not cut and dry, he acknowledged. The Jordan Valley is a vital Israeli security interest and, come what may, Israel is likely to maintain military control there for the foreseeable medium-term. But both Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and U.S. President Donald Trump have recently obfuscated their countries’ erstwhile support for a two-state solution. In Netanyahu’s case, it’s at least partly political, said Kowaz.

“He is dependent on his right-wing coalition partners, he’s willing to say things and even do things to secure his position as prime minister, even though he’s already surpassed [David] Ben-Gurion as Israel’s longest-serving one,” Kowaz said. “A lot of it is right-wing pandering to those people. Another part of it is a genuine security concern. The research done by the top security experts in Israel and others show that there is a way to keep that area secure while advancing a gradual separation of Palestinians and an eventual two states. Obviously, it’s not something that’s happening tomorrow.”

Kowaz, now 29, grew up in Vancouver’s Oakridge neighbourhood with an Israeli father, Joseph Kowaz, who moved to Vancouver in his 20s, and a mother, Andrea (Rogow) Kowaz, who moved here from New York at a young age. His late maternal grandparents were community leaders and academics Dr. Sally and Dr. Robert Rogow.

He attended Vancouver Talmud Torah and Hebrew Academy for elementary school and Magee and King David high schools, “so I kind of got a taste of Orthodox Jewish education, more of a secular traditional and also public school, so it was nice to have,” he said.

Kowaz did a gap year in Israel after high school, studying at Hebrew University and Ben-Gurion University. Returning to Canada, he graduated from McGill University in Montreal and then completed a graduate degree in digital media at Ryerson University in Toronto. His final project for his degree addressed ways to remember and educate about the Holocaust in the 21st century.

“From the beginning, I wanted to do something that was Israel-related,” said Kowaz. “So, it was either move straight to Israel or look for something Israel-connected that was outside of Israel.” He moved to New York City and soon got work at IPF. He moved to Tel Aviv last year and, in July 2018, married Tal Dor, a former graphic designer for the Israel Defence Forces newspaper BaMahane. She occasionally gives Kowaz advice and support from her experience.

Part of a generation that gained political awareness during the Second Intifada, Kowaz said he has been affected by the violent imagery of those days.

“I obviously want the best for everyone, but Israel is most important to me and I want Israel to be a Jewish state,” he said. “I want Israel to be a state that’s also accepted in the world to the best that it can be. Obviously, there will still be people that hate us but I don’t want Israel’s best allies to be Hungary, Poland, these right-wing [governments] with elements of fascism. We don’t want those to be our best friends, so, at the end of the day, I don’t think we have a perfect partner and the Palestinians, they’re never going to be a perfect partner, but we should do what’s best for Israel, which is at least preserve conditions for a two-state solution, a form of separation to secure Israel as a Jewish and democratic state as a goal for the next five, 10, 15 years. Keep that a possibility. And, right now … I think it’s definitely still an option. It’s still on the table. We haven’t killed it. But it’s treading in the wrong direction.”

The Israel Policy Forum began in 1993, said Kowaz, on the very day the day of the famous handshake on the White House lawn with Yitzhak Rabin, Bill Clinton and Yasser Arafat.

“At that time, Yitzhak Rabin was looking for American Jewish support for his vision of peace,” he said. “Even back then, AIPAC were already becoming close with Binyamin Netanyahu, who [had been] Israel’s ambassador to the UN and, at that time, he was already opposition leader.”

IPF does a lot of work in Washington, D.C., with policymakers, convening roundtable discussions and panels with congresspeople, congressional staffers and opinion leaders, as well as organizing events in synagogues around the United States, all focused on preserving conditions for two states.

Their positions are credibly backed up, said Kowaz, by security experts in Israel, called Commanders for Israel’s Security, which was begun by former major-general Amnon Reshef, a hero of the Yom Kippur War, and includes a cadre of 290 former IDF generals, Mossad and Shin Bet division heads and others.

“They work in Israel, so we work closely with them to relay their policy proposals and their messaging to an American audience,” he said. “It represents about 80% of the retired security establishment. It doesn’t get more legitimate than that. These are people that, I think, between all of them have 6,000 years of experience at the highest positions, making decisions constantly with people’s lives.”

While AIPAC has an upstart challenger on the left, J Street, Kowaz sees IPF as a more fact-based alternative to the politically oriented advocacy groups.

“People are looking for a voice that is different, that’s more policy-based, less trying to rally the troops and more looking at the facts,” he said. “I think we provide that kind of home and, in a way, everything’s very fact-based.”

Kowaz looks forward to continuing to work toward the perpetuation of Israel as a Jewish democratic state.

“It really doesn’t matter to me what the role is, I think that’s where I’d like to see myself,” he said, adding: “I’ve given up on the professional soccer career.”

Gershon Shafir was in Vancouver Nov. 9 to discuss some of the issues he raises in his latest book, A Half Century of Occupation. (photo from pages.ucsd.edu/~gshafir)

What does it mean to have a “permanently temporary occupation” in Israel? Gershon Shafir was in Vancouver Nov. 9 to discuss this question. A guest speaker at Simon Fraser University’s School for International Studies, Shafir is an Israeli expat, University of California, Los Angeles, sociology professor and author of the recently released book A Half Century of Occupation: Israel, Palestine and the World’s Most Intractable Conflict.

It’s the 10th book for Shafir and he wrote it specifically for the 50th anniversary of the 1967 war. The permanently temporary occupation is a difficult subject to discuss, he said.

“That’s because the existence of this phenomenon – that Israel is an occupying power – is denied. But what’s going on is an occupation and is considered to be so by the Israeli government itself when arguing in front of the country’s Supreme Court, the international community and the Palestinians that live under it.”

Shafir said the word occupation is a legal term referring to the effective control of a country on a territory over which it has no sovereignty.

“Israel’s occupation is one of the longest belligerent occupations since World War Two and it’s truly exceptional because it’s going into its third generation,” he told the Independent. “In my book, I look at the nature of the occupation, the role played by the Israeli state through settlement, and radicalization by religious settlers. I also study the feasibility of alternative solutions.”

Prior to 1948, Jewish settlement occurred in areas that were least densely populated by Palestinians, allowing the possibility of a separation between the two groups. “But religiously motivated settlers prefer to have their new settlements in the heartland of the most densely populated Palestinian areas, so the settlement process has been radicalized,” said Shafir.

In his lecture, and in more detail in his book, Shafir discussed the extent to which the occupation has transformed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As part of his book, he conducted a study that found the built-up area occupied by Israeli settlements is two percent of the West Bank and the demographic ratio of Israeli Jews to Palestinians is 1:7. He questions the widespread consensus that a territorial partition of Palestine and a two-state solution is no longer possible.

“I’ve carefully counted the number of settlers and the places where they reside, and I’ve subdivided settlement into different categories. What you discover is that if you remove 27,000 settlers in the West Bank, a land exchange is possible, as is a territorial partition and a Palestinian state,” he said. “People who say a two-state solution is impossible don’t sufficiently study the feasibility of a one-state solution.”

Shafir added that he’s not advocating a political position in his findings. On the contrary, he’s just suggesting that, based on his research, a two-state solution is still feasible. “Let’s not give up on that idea too soon, because we don’t know what we’ll be walking into,” he advised.

The lecture at SFU was part of a book tour in which Shafir spoke on university campuses in Boston, Seattle, New York and Los Angeles. Shafir comes to this topic with years of pedigree. He was president of the Association for Israel Studies in 2001-2003, and the books he’s authored include Land, Labor and the Origins of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, 1882-1914, Being Israeli: The Dynamics of Multiple Citizenship (co-authored with Yoav Peled), which won the Middle Eastern Studies Association’s Albert Hourani Award in 2002, and Struggle and Survival in Palestine/Israel, a collection of life histories, which he co-edited with Mark LeVine.

Lauren Kramer, an award-winning writer and editor, lives in Richmond. To read her work online, visit laurenkramer.net.

Binyamin Netanyahu may not have expected the international reaction he received when he accused opponents of Jewish settlements in the West Bank of supporting the ethnic cleansing of Jews. While he went too far, there is some truth to be learned from the fallout.

The Israeli prime minister made the comments in a video, where he noted that nobody suggests that two million Arab citizens of Israel are an obstacle to peace. Yet the presence of Jews in the areas most people assume will eventually be Palestine under a two-state solution, he said, is repeatedly held up as proof that Israel is not acting in good faith toward a two-state objective.

Netanyahu was pointing out one of the glaring hypocrisies in the discussion of an eventual peace agreement and a two-state solution. He was intentionally inflammatory but, in the process, he set off a reaction that is illuminating and worth consideration.

First, we need to understand this basic fact: nobody expects Jews living outside the Green Line to voluntarily become citizens of a future Palestinian state. The entire discussion is an exercise in rhetoric. But this fact, too, raises other issues. Not many believe that Jews in an independent Palestine could live as citizens the way Arab citizens of Israel do under law (however imperfect this ideal might be in practice), partly because it’s probable that nobody would be free in an independent Palestine. If history is any measure, an independent Palestine might be a theocracy run by Hamas, a kleptocracy run by Fatah or some hybrid thereof. Regardless, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, among others, has insisted that no Jews will be permitted to live in an independent Palestine. The world ignores these racist statements, or excuses them as the legitimate reaction of a people long oppressed by the Jewish state.

Since most Jews would flee of their own volition if they found their homes outside the new borders of Israel, Netanyahu’s claims of ethnic cleansing can be seen as inflammatory and false, since it is not the Palestinians who would evacuate the Jews from the West Bank, but the West Bank Jews themselves, knowing the place held no future for them. But, while Netanyahu should be criticized for exploiting the term ethnic cleansing, perhaps to deflect criticism from the settlements, he has also drawn attention to the uncomfortable truth that the dream of Palestinian “freedom” for which so many in the world (including, for instance, most delegates to the recent Green Party of Canada convention) have devoted so much of their energies, is in fact a cause that may instead create a country that is nobody’s dream of a free and independent homeland.

Netanyahu is guilty of poking a hornet’s nest. However, his critics, too, should look at their own assumptions and motivations. The prime minister went too far in summoning imagery of mass deportations, but others have not gone far enough in addressing the reality that the movement for Palestinian independence in infused with unhealthy ideologies, of which excluding Jews from citizenship is just one.

In June, the Spanish government passed a law granting descendants of Sephardi Jews forced from that country in the 15th century the right to dual Spanish citizenship.

Only someone unfamiliar with the toing and froing of Jewish migrations and expulsions could be blind to the magnificence with which this move dovetails with history. For millennia, princes and fiefs, kings and counts expelled the Jews from their realms in one generation and then enticed them back in successive ones, when their perceived value rebounded or when the duchy or kingdom was in financial peril. Sometimes it took a generation, sometimes it took 600 years, as in the case of Spain, which, it should be noted, is now just a few notches above Greece on the financial solvency scale.

But Jews who consider taking up Spain’s generous offer will be taking a sober second look after recent events. OK, the events were a relatively small-scale tempest – a reggae festival in Valencia – but the lessons are wide-ranging and deeply telling.

Matisyahu, the once Chassidic, now just Jewish, reggae rapper, was disinvited from the Rototom Sunsplash Festival after he refused to sign a pledge in support of a Palestinian state. The boycott, divestment and sanctions movement had convinced the festival organizers that participants should be forced to commit to the Palestinian cause.

The quality of the performers or the wishes of the audience were secondary to the political positions of the musicians, apparently. Why this obscure music festival should become a flashpoint for a kerfuffle over the Middle East may seem baffling, but the strategy of the movement has been to demand loyalty oaths from anyone at any time in any place. Canadian film festivals, including the Toronto International Film Festival and the Vancouver Queer Film Festival, have been roiled over the topic in the past. These efforts at a “cultural boycott” are atrocious enough, but the worst tactics of the movement promote an academic boycott, which is as close as we can come to literal book-burning.

Is it additionally appalling that Matisyahu is not Israeli, but American? Sort of. The boycotters have attacked Israelis for the most part, but now they are turning their cannons on anyone who might think that Israel has a right to exist alongside a Palestinian state. (Note that the oath did not address a two-state solution. Coexistence is not top of the agenda for BDSers.)

Not all Jews are Zionists and, indeed, some Jews support the BDS movement. However, if you believe in the right of self-determination for the Palestinian people, but not for the Jewish people, then you are at the least a hypocrite.

The BDS movement, while a relatively new phenomenon, has its historical antecedents in the people who would paint Stars of David on Jewish shop windows. It is a mob of bullies for the most part, which calls itself pro-Palestinian, but exhibits nothing positive, only hatred and vilification of Israel.

Although a reggae festival might seem an odd place to start, the BDSers and the larger “pro-Palestinian” contingent could buy themselves some legitimacy by taking an oath themselves: to work together with all people to find a peaceful resolution so that two peoples can live in coexistence in Jewish and Palestinian states. It’s a pledge the Jewish people accepted in 1947-48 and have reiterated throughout the ensuing seven decades. The Matisyahu brouhaha is an example of the answer the Jewish people have received to that olive branch.

As part of the Jewish Heritage Centre of Western Canada’s Annual Sol and Florence Kanee Distinguished Lecture Speaker Series, leading Israeli columnist and writer Ari Shavit addressed a packed room of 300 people on the topic Is Peace Dead? The talk took place April 19 at Shaarey Zedek Synagogue in Winnipeg.

Shavit, who described himself a “diehard peacenik,” said he is more comfortable referring to what some call “the Arab Awakening” as “the Arab Chaos.”

He explained, “We were hoping for an Arab Spring. It turned into something else and the result is the Arab Chaos. The old order that ruled over the Arab world has collapsed, but it was not replaced by any liberal democracy. It was replaced with more tribalism, more fanaticism and much more violence. We now see a human catastrophe engulfing a large part of the region and the acute situation of instability. I care about my fellow humans and we have to be saddened that we have such a terrible human catastrophe.”

Even worse, in Shavit’s view, “There is no more chance in the upcoming years to have the old kind of peace we hoped for,” he said. “I don’t think we can have the kind of peace agreement like with Egypt or Jordan in the coming years, because those were peace agreements that were signed with tyranny.”

Shavit used Syria as an example, saying that, back in the 1990s and in early 2000, he very much supported a peace agreement with Syria. But, he said, “Now, there is no one to make peace with.

“The good news is the more clear division within the Arab community. Many Arab moderates are now terrified by Iran, by ISIS, by the Islamic Brotherhood, by Al-Qaeda, by extremists, [so] they actually are closer to Israel than they ever were in the past. So, there is a kind of interesting potential within this sad, tragic, acute situation.”

According to Shavit, the road to peace today begins with the understanding that we cannot reach a two-state solution with the Palestinians in the coming months or years.

“We won’t have the comprehensive peace we hoped for,” said Shavit. “But, on the other hand, we should not accept the status quo. And, I think we should launch a two-state dynamic, which would lead to a two-state state to start with, and eventually lead to a two-state solution.”

Regionally, Shavit stressed the need for Israel to work much more closely with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf countries and Jordan, as, he said, “They are closer to Israel than they ever were.”

Though Shavit conceded that the likelihood of signing a new formal peace agreement may not currently be in the cards, he encouraged “building a kind of peace based on economic interests, mutual interests and strategic interests.”

What Shavit envisions is “the kind of peace agreement [Israel] had with Jordan before the 1994 peace signing. There were no embassies, there were no Nobel Prizes, no White House ceremonies, but we had a very close, intimate relationship – quite a lot of the time – better than after the formal signing. That should be an example of what can be done in this new chaotic situation.”

Shavit sees potential for “cooperation as opposed to a utopian peace.” Potential partners for this cooperation, Shavit suggested would include “the major Arab Sunni nations led by moderate people…. [People who] are not deeply concerned or interested in human rights or democracy, but they don’t want extremists. Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States fall into that category. So, the strategic game now is pretty much controlled by two non-Arab countries – Israel and Turkey – and, I would say, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.”

As to whether or not these partners are interested in just cooperation or a more lasting peace, Shavit said, “I think they want to live and they want stability. Therefore, if we promote this new peace concept, I think there’s a chance of having a better relationship. I think many of them see Israel as a partner in that.

“It’s not that they are going to have a religious conversion…. I don’t see a kind of relationship that France and Spain have or Canada and the U.S. do, but, I do see a kind of Middle East-style relationship – the ability to create a structure that can be formed again if we endorse the right ideas.”

Regarding Israel’s recent elections, Shavit feels that the left lost more than the right won. “The lack of a peace plan of action had a lot to do with that. Even the left-wing part[ies] were not very aggressive at promotional peace. The peace talked about in the national community is a kind of peace that is totally detached.”

Shavit is hopeful that Israelis will open their hearts to peace, in the case where “a kind of new peace, a concept that is more realistic, comes around. As long as the community talks about European-style peace, when we have a kind of evil political reality in a large part of the Middle East, Israelis will not buy into that.”

International support is critical to any potential peace progress and, while Shavit loves Canada in many ways, he said, “I appreciate that Canada is supportive of Israel, when there aren’t many that support Israel in such a way. [But] obviously, the real relevant player is the United States.

“I hope that America will endorse a new kind of peace policy and then build a wide coalition – first of all with Canada, then with the European powers and then with the moderate Arabs and Israelis – addressing the issues in a realistic way.”

Shavit believes that the “dysfunctional relationship” of Binyamin Netanyahu and Barack Obama is not advancing the situation. “I hope I can be successful in encouraging an intellectual process to be helpful in bringing some change to that,” he said.

Shavit, like many others in Israel and around the world, is waiting to see what kind of Israeli government will be formed. “If we do have a right-wing government, with [Avigdor] Lieberman being the centre, I worry that we will have unpleasant legislation that will alienate the Arab minority even more and jeopardize the fragile relationship with them. If it will be more moderate in the centre, there is less danger.

“I think the last six months were very troubling, with unprecedented legislation or attempts [to discriminate], though most failed. I hope and pray that our power will not go back to that kind of approach. I think it will endanger Israel’s soul in a serious way.”

Shavit is hopeful that minority rights will not be trampled, as “the tradition of the historic Israeli right always combines nationalism with liberalism, with a deep respect for democracy. I really hope we will not see dark forces in Israel rising to power.”

Mira Sucharov spoke on March 2 as part of the University of Winnipeg’s Middle East Week. (photo from Mira Sucharov)

As part of Middle East Week at the University of Winnipeg, Mira Sucharov, associate professor of political science at Carleton University in Ottawa, spoke on the topic of Power and Identity Across the Israeli-Palestinian Divide.

About 60 people came out March 2 to the university’s Convocation Hall to hear Sucharov, who is currently the country analyst for Israel and the Palestinian territories for Freedom House, as well as a blogger and writer whose work appears regularly in several publications around the world, including the Jewish Independent.

Sucharov sees relations between Palestinians and Israelis as more polarized now than at any other time since the peace process that began two decades ago. She said she was pleased to be part of U of W’s Middle East Week, as it promotes dialogue, in contrast to the situation on many North American campuses, where hardened opposing camps are choosing shouting over listening.

Describing herself as a liberal Zionist, Sucharov explained the term as referring to someone who “believes that there is legitimacy to Israel’s existence, and that nations deserve a state.” However, “liberal Zionists not only acknowledge the existence of Israel and support its existence, they are deeply troubled by its occupation.”

Sucharov said that, while some Israelis and Israel supporters prefer the term “disputed land” to the term “occupation,” Sucharov views “occupation” as “an important word.” She explained, “We’re not just talking about a geographic swap of land. We’re talking about a population of Palestinians who are not citizens of any country.

“The IDF, on a macro level and often on a micro level, is in charge of the area and the daily lives of Palestinians who have to pass through checkpoints to get to work, to farm their land…. We know about the Israeli security barrier or separation wall that has served to disrupt daily lives in many ways in the West Bank.

“So, liberal Zionists are troubled by this idea of occupation and seek to do what they can to end it. As a Canadian from Winnipeg, I feel that by engaging in constructive discussion, constantly being educated, I can help people at a global level think more deeply, critically, and in a more engaged way about issues of global concern.”

Sucharov said that there are financial incentives, as well as ideological motivations, for living in the West Bank. “There are many who’ve moved to the West Bank because it’s cheaper,” she noted. “Part of it, no doubt, was wanting to return to biblical Israel, a sense of having a greater Israel, of being/having religious/national identity fulfilled. There’s another important motivating factor, and that was the idea of Israel having a wider girth, more strategic depth.”

In Sucharov’s view, “the occupation” should not be permanent, and dialogue is needed to get governments together for peace talks. “The only way to end the occupation is if Israelis and Palestinians come together to discuss and negotiate an agreement,” she said.

As for what such an agreement may look like, Sucharov imagines “a city with two capitals: Jerusalem, a holy place for all religions to pray at their own places of worship. Refugees will probably be returned, free return to a Palestinian state. There will probably be some compensation package, [on a] humanitarian basis for some refugees … based on historical agreements.”

If the Geneva initiative does take place, said Sucharov, “Can Israel feel safe with such an agreement?

“It used to be called, ‘give an inch, they’ll take a mile,’” she continued. “Now, there is a concern about the fact that Palestinians in a recent poll have indicated that they would want to use a two-state agreement as the beginnings of full takeover.

“Palestinians, no doubt, would want all of Israel … many of them … and Israelis, no doubt, would want all of Palestine … many of them. The question is, even if some Palestinians were desirous of acquiring or launching terrorist missions with or without the consent of its governing authority, could Israel defend itself?”

If/when Israelis and Palestinians reach an agreement, she said, they would have to make sure that there were “security guarantees from the United States … [that] the U.S. will guarantee the security of Israel.

“Palestine would have to agree to be a de-militarized state. So, both sides will not have to necessarily trust each other … [they] would have to understand that there is a security guarantee in the form of a major global superpower.

“That’s the two-state solution. But, there certainly are those in the military establishment of any state who could stand to gain from an ongoing conflict…. We have to … make peace seem more attractive.”

As things stand, Sucharov said, “Palestinians and Israelis are almost mutually fearful of one another.… I think the biggest obstacle is the culture of mutual fear.”

And then there is the question of whether or not Iran, if there is the possibility of peace between Israelis and Palestinians, will “behave in a suicidal fashion,” said Sucharov. “That’s what, in international relations, [they] call the … idea of nuclear deterrence – the idea that more nukes make the world safer. I’d prefer less nukes, less proliferation, but there is a logic to the idea of stability of nuclear weapons.

“Once peace is achieved by the government, ideally, the next generation grows up in a culture in which the status quo exists.

“Regional threats would be diffused to make peace,” she continued. However, “the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not the only conflict in the region and we’re not going to see peace on earth, but Iran and other enemies of Israel … Hamas … would have less wind in their sails. The status quo would be peace, so there would hopefully be less local support for their belligerent postures.”

Prime Minister Stephen Harper reiterated Canada’s support for a two-state solution in a conversation last week with Binyamin Netanyahu, the just-reelected prime minister of Israel.

The commitment to Palestinian self-determination was a subtle but clear message to the Israeli leader. Since Harper came to office, Canada has refrained from joining the global chorus of condemnation against Israel. Harper’s office issued a statement Sunday summarizing the remarks he shared with Netanyahu, which included congratulations on his success in the March 17 election.

Canada’s modest reminder to Netanyahu that the world expects a long-range resolution to the conflict that includes a Palestinian state reflects just one of the serious issues facing Netanyahu domestically and internationally.

The Israeli prime minister inherits – from himself – a political and diplomatic mess. In the last days of the election campaign, Netanyahu declared that a Palestinian state would not emerge on his watch. The context of the remarks may not have been quite as dramatic as media reports and global reaction suggest – he said they were premised on his assertion that the conditions were not ripe for a secure Palestinian state to emerge given the strength of adjacent Islamist regimes. And, in fact, immediately after the votes were counted, he began backpedalling.

But Netanyahu’s rhetoric is rarely subtle and he should not escape blame for his words and actions. On election day itself, Netanyahu sought to drive his supporters to the polls by warning of Arab-Israeli voters flocking to the polls in “droves” – a racist statement that pitted one group of Israeli citizens against another in ways utterly unbecoming the leader of a country.

Whatever it says about the Israeli electorate, these statements probably played a significant role in the surprise surge that delivered victory to Netanyahu’s Likud party.

Now that he is returning to office, Netanyahu has external as well as internal divisions to mend. Israel was already suffering from a lack of friends on the international stage before Netanyahu exacerbated already deeply strained relations with the American leader.

No one refutes the bad blood between Netanyahu and U.S. President Barack Obama, and both men bear blame for behaving like brats, rather than leaders of crucial allied states. But while Obama’s behavior toward Israel has looked passive-aggressive, Netanyahu’s behavior has been just plain aggressive, showing up in the American legislature to school the superpower on the subject of global politics.

Netanyahu may have revelled in the adulation of Republican and some Democratic lawmakers, but he was used as an obliging dupe in a domestic American partisan smackdown that verged on a constitutional calamity.

Now returning to office, Netanyahu faces a world even less amenable to his approach and weary of his belligerent manner. In these critical days of negotiation with Iran, Netanyahu is now trying to build bridges to the French leadership because he has lost leverage with the Americans.

In less than two years, the United States will have a new president, which will possibly reset the dynamic in the relationship, but the damage goes beyond a personal relationship.

Now that Israeli elections are over to Netanyahu’s satisfaction, perhaps he will allow his more diplomatic side to temper his politically expedient nature. The creation of his new coalition and cabinet will be the first major opportunity to read the tea leaves of his approach post-victory. We hope it signals a fresh approach.

Over the years, we have contended that Israeli decisions must be made based on Israeli needs, not on what makes it easiest for Diaspora Zionists to advocate for or defend Israel. But Netanyahu’s behavior during the election campaign has created genuine, real, not insignificant rifts between Israel and the people, like us, who are among its staunchest friends in the world.

It is up to Netanyahu now to demonstrate maturity and openness abroad and to repair the damage he has done domestically by pitting groups of Israelis against one another, by preordaining the failure of a two-state solution and for poking the country’s once-greatest ally in the eye.